Chris Bryant: As well as raising with Iran the question of its nuclear programme, will my right hon. Friend make urgent representations to the Iranian Government on their human rights record, which was grisly and is becoming more vicious month by month. They are executing people for their sexuality and more than 20 young people under the age of 18 are on death row in Iran as we speak. Is it not time that we made urgent representations on this issue as well as on the nuclear programme?

William Hague: In response to allegations that the torture of suspects has followed rendition through the United Kingdom, the Foreign Secretary has said that the Clinton Administration asked in a few instances for permission to render a detainee through United Kingdom territory or air space, but is it his understanding that the current US Administration will follow the same protocol if they wish to use the UK for rendition? Can he assure the House that Ministers are satisfied that rendition through the United Kingdom leading to torture in a third country has not taken place in recent years, and is not taking place now? If they are not satisfied, what further inquiries will they instigate?

Ian Pearson: The UK Government are totally committed to further reform of the CAP. The reform of the sugar regime has begun recently, and we expect to see further reforms. The hon. Gentleman may have seen the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs document, which was issued just before Christmas, outlining the Government's policy on the CAP. We should continue to maintain a high level of ambition on the Doha development agenda and use the next six months to continue working together with our international partners to secure an ambitious outcome to the round. It is not only the EU, but the US which must do more on agriculture, and Brazil, India and other countries must play their full parts, too.

Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have on several occasions made clear to this House the importance of Government Ministers making new policy announcements to this House before they do so to the media. Today, the Prime Minister and 16 Government Ministers have been around the country launching the Government's new policy on antisocial behaviour and the respect agenda. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can ensure that in future the Prime Minister and members of the Government show the appropriate level of respect to this House; or are we to assume that there is nothing new in this policy announcement at all?

Mark Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that part of the proposals on antisocial behaviour is of special concern to many constituents and colleagues in Hertfordshire. We have not had the opportunity to learn from the Prime Minister, who made the statement today, what the proposals are. Is it within your power, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister to have respect for the House, come here and give us a chance to ask questions? I understand that the Prime Minister is asking for parents to have lessons in respect. Perhaps you should have the power to make the Prime Minister have respect for this place.

Andrew Miller: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to forbid bus companies to reduce bus services without prior consultation; to make provision for services for elderly passengers and passengers with disabilities; and for connected purposes.
	In essence, I seek to put the customer first in the relationship with bus companies. As the House knows, since the deregulation of bus services by the previous Administration, standards have varied across the country. Some areas have enjoyed excellent provision while elsewhere services have been sparse. Many hon. Members believe that deregulation was a mistake and that services have suffered as a consequence. Tempting as it is to try to present a Bill to reverse the Transport Act 1985, today I am simply going to deal with two matters: the unilateral removal of services and the needs of the least mobile passengers.
	I shall outline the deregulation provisions in the 1985 Act, which a helpful briefing from the Library describes. Proposals to deregulate local bus services were published in 1984 in the White Paper, "Buses" and a subsequent series of more detailed consultation papers. They were brought into effect by part I of the 1985 Act, which abolished road service licensing in Great Britain, except in London, from October 1986. The Act replaced the licensing system with a system of registration and removed the duties of local authorities to co-ordinate public passenger transport in their area.
	Individual bus operators were responsible for timetables and the introduction of new services depended on the operator's opinion of the demand for them and their commercial viability. There was no requirement in the 1985 Act or its regulations for the commercial bus operator to consult before making changes to the timetable and the position of bus stops.
	The criteria for registration did not include any reference to public demand or existing services, and objections could no longer be made by other operators or local authorities. Passenger transport executives—PTEs—and county councils were given powers to secure, using subsidy, socially necessary services that were not provided by the commercial market. Controls over those services, such as fare levels, type of bus and so on, could be maintained. Operators had the right to participate in concessionary fare schemes and the PTE had powers to compel participation in them. Operators were to be reimbursed for the net financial loss incurred by such participation.
	I have been trying for some time to get companies to consider the needs of hospital visitors and patients as well as those of the young, elderly and disabled, not all of whom always get as good a service as that to which they are entitled. Out of the blue, I was told at the end of last year of a series of cuts and service changes—a euphemism for more cuts—that would occur on 8 January on routes covered by First. First's headed paper has the strap line, "transforming travel". It should say, "transforming travel for the worse".
	Needless to say, the company did not think it appropriate to consult the local Member of Parliament. Although it apologised for the fact that I discovered its plans through a member of the public, consultation was clearly not going to take place in any case. In a half-hearted grovel, it went on to say:
	"The decision to withdraw these services has not been taken lightly".
	In other words, it was going to withdraw them irrespective of anything that I said. This was a fait accompli; any representation that I or anyone else made would be ignored.
	I wrote to the company on 29 November to advise it of my intention to raise the matter in the House. However, all I have received since then is a vague letter inviting me to meet its representatives after the services have disappeared. I hope that my hon. Friends in the Department for Transport will take note of this lack of courtesy to the House and to the people of my constituency.
	Just as an aside, I must point out that the same company has invented a story about the future of its depot in Ellesmere Port. It claims that it faces a situation in which
	"the lease on our site expires in the spring of next year and we have been told that the owners wish to sell the site".
	A good excuse, perhaps, if it were true. However, my research shows it to be a distortion. In fact, the landowner, Shell, has provided me with a history of the site, and it is quite clear that First is not being forced from it. However, First's lack of candour is typical of its general approach.
	I am pleased to say that there is good news in all this, in that Arriva has agreed to take over the services. First did not think that the services were commercially viable, but Arriva is prepared to run them. Indeed, it has made a particular point of using low-floor vehicles, which takes me to the second point in my Bill, namely the needs of less mobile people. While I welcome progress that has been made by the introduction of more accessible vehicles, the House should be mindful of the fact that we are a long way from achieving 100 per cent. coverage by this type of vehicle. I fully recognise that there are cost implications involved, but I urge my friends in the Department, in local authorities and in bus operating companies to give a high priority to meeting this need.
	My Bill would also require companies, when establishing timetables, to make allowance for the time that it takes for the less mobile to get on and off busses. None of us should ever have to hear complaints that a bus would not wait to allow a person to get a wheelchair or buggy aboard, or that a driver would not wait for a slower person with learning difficulties. These are all real examples of cases that have come to my attention as a Member of Parliament. Timetables must meet the needs of all passengers, but particularly those less likely to have access to a car. Part of this problem results from a lack of awareness of the needs of disabled people by drivers and other staff, but I am not seeking to blame them. Their employers should be required to take responsibility for ensuring that they receive proper training. I would prefer to achieve the solution to this problem by gentle persuasion, but I want to leave scope in my Bill to require the provision of such training.
	None of these proposals is intended to place unreasonable burdens on the good operators. My intention is to try to stimulate a debate to raise standards in the important area of bus provision. I also want to use this opportunity to make it clear to companies such as First that the way in which they treat Members of the House who are acting on behalf of their constituents needs to be looked at carefully, to say the least. The notion that a company of such stature can simply withhold information from a Member of Parliament about things that are happening in his or her constituency is unacceptable. The notion that such companies can tell us things that are stretching a point or are inaccurate is also clearly unacceptable.
	I am pleased to see the Minister with responsibility for bus services in the Chamber, and I hope that my hon. Friends in the Department for Transport will take on board the points that I have raised. I hope that colleagues will support my proposals here today and encourage the regulated and deregulated parts of the industry to raise their game.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Andrew Miller, John Bercow, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Helen Goodman, Mr. Kevan Jones, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Andrew Mackinlay, Bob Russell, Ms Angela C. Smith, Angela Eagle and Dr. Brian Iddon.

Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The whole House will understand that it would perhaps be an error of judgment not to mention in the opening stages of this debate our good friend and colleague Tony Banks, a man who always had something pertinent, and frequently something impertinent, to say about animal welfare issues. Certainly, we all owe him a debt of gratitude in highlighting those issues.
	This Bill is the most significant and comprehensive proposal for animal welfare legislation for nearly a century and it fulfils a commitment that we made in our last manifesto. It promotes a positive duty to ensure the welfare of animals, and brings the law on pets up to date with the law on farmed livestock. It increases the penalties available for the most serious offences while closing an existing loophole, and brings together and simplifies more than 20 pieces of legislation.
	The Bill is the result of some four years work by my Department, beginning with a public consultation in 2002. The subsequent draft Bill was given pre-legislative scrutiny in 2004 by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to whose work I pay tribute. The Committee heard representations from many parties, including the Welsh Assembly, and worked intensively to produce its report. The Government have listened carefully to its recommendations and have made a number of important changes as a result. The Bill that we are discussing today is undoubtedly better as a result of that work, and I am also grateful for the follow-up work done by the Committee since the Bill's First Reading in October.
	It is also right to acknowledge the substantial contributions made by members of the public, who responded in large numbers to the consultation and to campaigns run subsequently by non-governmental organisations and others in favour of the Bill, and by stakeholders from across society. Since the end of the formal consultation, my Department has had exhaustive discussions with many interested parties to refine policy and to try to improve further the Bill's drafting. The overwhelming reaction from all those channels—the Select Committee, the public and stakeholders—has been positive, and the Bill has had a very warm welcome.
	Before I turn to the principal provisions of the Bill, let me comment briefly on the background to it. The linchpin of our current legislative framework is the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which, as the House will appreciate, is nearly 100 years old. In its time, the 1911 Act was a landmark Bill that set out specific prohibitions against human cruelty to animals and proved remarkably enduring—for more than 50 years, Parliament dealt only with relatively minor amending Acts and supplementary provisions. In the 1960s, however, concerns about new farming methods and a better understanding of good husbandry practices led Parliament to pass the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. That Act was a further landmark. For the first time, the law moved beyond simply regulating cruelty and created a positive regulation-making power to promote the welfare of animals. That power, however, was limited to the welfare of farm livestock. Since then, Parliament has passed major laws on animal health and scientific procedures, but the 1911 Act, supplemented by the 1968 Act and some 20 others, remains the platform for animal protection legislation.
	After 90 years of evolution, it is clear that our existing law is excessively complex and inaccessible, written in the language of an earlier age, and—more important—unnecessarily inconsistent in the standards that it sets. In particular, it has failed to keep up with scientific advances. Since the 1960s, research into the behaviour and physiology of individual species has greatly improved our understanding of the sheer complexity of animal welfare. The pace of scientific progress is expected to quicken in the years ahead, requiring flexibility in both policy-making and legislation.
	In respect of livestock, the power to make regulations under the 1968 Act allows the Government to respond to scientific developments and evolving welfare standards set by, for instance, the European Union. In respect of pets, however, the inflexibility of the 1911 Act requires the Government—or, indeed, Members—to present amending Bills to effect change. Given the competing priorities for parliamentary time, that asymmetry means that protection for pets is lagging behind protection for farmed animals. The Bill creates a more flexible statutory framework. It sets out key principles, but leaves detailed matters to secondary legislation. The Government believe that that flexibility is critical if our legislation is to keep pace with the expected advances in animal welfare.

Jim Knight: It is worth 3.5 billion.

David Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on presenting a landmark Bill, the first for 100 years or more—since the time of the last Liberal Government.
	My right hon. Friend spoke of the importance of reflecting scientific advance in legislation. Scientific advance has certainly shown that cephalopods have complex brains and sense organs rivalling those of vertebrates. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that as the science develops, the legislation will be flexible enough to allow those categories of organism to be incorporated in the definition of "animal" if the scientific evidence is proved correct in a way that satisfies the Government of the day? Such matters are important. We do not want to have to wait a further century for the next Liberal Government before the legislation is updated.

Lembit �pik: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Bill clearly defines the point at which the status of birds being reared for game shooting changes, and is she satisfied that there is a clear understanding of the issues related to game rearing, such as the use of cages in certain circumstances? Given that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and other organisations share her concern about the issues raised by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) a moment ago, can she assure us that there will be an opportunity to create an accord, using a code of conduct, that satisfies everybody?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend also makes an important point. I can assure her that we are prepared to look at the issue with some sympathy and I take her point that the Bill may result in a greater need for animal sanctuaries in the future.The powers for licensing and registration will replace a range of statutes regulating such activities as performing animals, pet shops, riding schools and dog-breeding and animal-boarding establishments. Through secondary legislation, we will regulate activities such as animal sanctuaries, pet fairs, livery yards and the welfare of racing greyhounds. We have tried to involve interested parties in the development of those proposals and we believe that they are on a scale appropriate to the problems that they seek to address; but I take the points that have been made in interventions, which can no doubt be considered as the legislation is discussed.
	In most cases we intend to replace the existing 12-month licences with more flexible ones of no more than three years' duration. In some areas, with regard to animal sanctuaries, we are considering registration rather than licensing, although as I said we shall keep the issue under review. A more flexible approach should allow local authorities to target establishments according to risk, thus concentrating their resources where acceptable standards are not being met. It will allow vets and others to become involved without imposing unreasonable financial burdens on the activity that is being licensed or registered. Details of our proposals on secondary legislation are set out in the regulatory impact assessment. As I have already said, there will be full public consultation and scrutiny.
	The Bill, like the legislation it will replace, will be what is perhaps somewhat infelicitously called a common informers Act, which means that anyonea private individual or an organisationcan take forward a prosecution under its provisions if they think that they have the necessary evidence. However, powers of entry, search and seizure are reserved for the police, local authorities and the state veterinary service. The definition of an inspector is a person appointed to be an inspector by such an authority.
	During the pre-legislative scrutiny, there were a number of questions about the role of the RSPCA and its inspectors. As I said to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) a few moments ago, the Bill does not give the RSPCA specific extra powers; indeed, it should be made clear that the RSPCA has not asked for any such extra powers. As is the case now, if the RSPCA has reason to believe that an offence has been committed and entry to a property has been refused, it will approach the police to ask them to use their powers of entry.
	Our society is increasingly and rightly intolerant of acts of violence and cruelty towards animals, but recent press campaigns have revealed some nauseating examples of ill-treatment and abuse. From the enormous postbag on such issues received by my Department and, I think, every Member, we know that the public at large want us to provide the courts with tougher penalties for offenders, and that is what the Bill does.
	The maximum penalty for causing unnecessary suffering will be a fine of 20,000 or 51 weeks imprisonment, or both. At present, the top fine is 5,000, so the Bill has raised that penalty significantly. The maximum sentence of 51 weeks imprisonment is the maximum that magistrates courts can impose under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The maximum penalty under the welfare offence will be 5,000 or 51 weeks imprisonment, or both. We are also using the Bill to close a loophole in existing legislation, whereby offenders can circumvent orders disqualifying them from having custody of an animal.
	Generally, the Bill applies to England and Wales only. Secondary regulations will be made by my Department and the National Assembly for Wales.

David Lepper: May I join hon. Members who have congratulated the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on introducing this long-overdue legislation? I, too, support the measures that it includes.
	There has been some discussion about what is not in the Bill, and matters that will be the subject of secondary legislation and the regulatory impact assessment. I would like to concentrate on annexe C of the regulatory impact assessment, which deals with pet fairs because the terms of the Bill do not pay sufficient attention to the recommendations on pet fairs in the report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the draft Bill. I do not, for instance, agree with the statement in the regulatory impact assessment that there
	is a lack of evidence to suggest that pet fairs by their very nature cannot maintain acceptable welfare standards.
	When considering the draft Bill, a major concern of many members of the Select Committee was the wealth of evidence of poor welfare standards at pet fairs. A number of local councils refuse to license pet fairs, and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health believes that they are illegal. The Government are right to seek to clarify their legality, but they are approaching it the wrong way.
	Worries about pet fairs have, of course, been exacerbated by recent concerns about avian flu, particularly evidence presented by the Animal Protection Agency, which is based in my constituency, about the probable link between a quarantine centre where a parrot died in October with signs of the H5N1 infection and the Stafford bird fair where some birds were previously housed. Concerns, however, predate the avian flu outbreak. As I have said, evidence presented by several organisations to the Select Committee revealed concerns about the health, particularly of birds, as well as of other animals at an event at which, with the best will in the world, five or any number of vets could not properly assess the health of the several thousand animalsas many as 13,000 animals at one pet fairthat are offered for sale.
	There are concerns, too, about the ease with which disease can be spread at those events, not only between the animals themselves, but from animals to human beings. In an article published in Veterinary News in November last year, Elaine Toland of the Animal Protection Agency, Clifford Warwick and Greg Glendell of Birds First explained how, over a period of time, they had visited pet fairs and purchased six birds, all of which were revealed, within a few days or weeks of purchase, to have a number of diseases from which they died. That is the source of the concern that has been expressed by Animal Aid, the Born Free Foundation and the International Fund for Animal Welfare about the spread of disease, which is a real possibility at such events.
	It is right that the Government make it clear in the regulatory impact assessment that although they wish to consider licensing pet fairs, they do not wish to bring within the scope of that licensing regime shows and exhibitions by genuine hobbyists, those concerned primarily with the welfare of the animals or birds that they keep who wish to exhibit those animals and exchange information about their care. But where the Government have gone wrong is in asking whether pet fairs should be regulated by a licensing regime, rather than clarifying the law on whether they are illegal. Should not the question have been whether they should be allowed to exist, rather than whether they should the licensed?

Norman Baker: First, may I add my comments to those of other hon. Members about Tony Banks, who did a great deal in this House for animal welfare? It is very sad that he is not with us to see the introduction of this Bill today.
	I welcome the Bill and add my support and that of my hon. Friends to that expressed by the Conservative party and Labour Back Benchers. We support the Bill, but we will also seek to improve it. Although it is a matter of party policy for us, Liberal Democrat Members will, like other hon. Members, have free votes on certain issues, one or two of which have already been raised.
	Given that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has mentioned that he keeps a protected animal, I should mention that I have two cats, which do even less of what they are told than his dog.
	The legislation is long overdue, and it has had a long gestation. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was right to say that such legislation normally comes forward only under a Liberal Government. If we had had more Liberal Governments, we might have more legislation to improve animal welfare.

Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned certain controversial issues that he wants to address by tabling amendments or new clauses in Committee or on Report. Surely, a more constructive and coherent approach would be to find a mechanism whereby the House can scrutinise the secondary legislation. We have been told that there will be consultation on that. Fine, but the legislation will then come back under the existing procedures of the House. The hon. Member for East Surrey rightly pointed out that the Statutory Instruments Committee was not an adequate forum to provide such scrutiny. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is minded to scrutinise many of these issues, but would the hon. Gentleman's party support finding an imaginative waynot just through an Adjournment debate or a Select Committeefor the House to make decisions on some of those issues? Would not that be the healthiest way of getting them aired, dealt with and decided?

Ann Widdecombe: My hon. Friend's timing is immaculate, as was the case earlier with an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. In fact I was going to speak about primates in a few seconds.
	With some animals, ownership can be justified only very rarely. In the case of primates, it may very occasionally happen that a scientist rescues one that is not suitable for release into the wild and which cannot be placed in a zoo because it is not au fait with others of its species. Such circumstances may come about on very rare occasions, but most people will cleave to the proposition that a human being does not need to own a primate as that would not be in the animal's interest.
	The Bill does not deal with the matter of keeping primates as pets, and another large grey area in the proposals has to do with circus animals. Children of my generation used to love going to the circus, where the animals' performance gave us much innocent pleasure. I remember, of course, the chimps' tea party. I did not see anything like it again until I saw Prime Minister's questions. [Laughter.] I also remember seeing elephants balancing on an amazingly small space. I have seen balancing acts in this place, but nothing in between that was as spectacular. Now, of course, I understand, as I suspect we all do, that much of the conduct used to persuade animals to act in that fashion is not benignand that is a deep understatement.
	It appears that under present legislation it is legal to beat an animal in a circus in order to produce the required performance, although it is not legal to beat the animal once the performance has been produced. In other words, one may use physical punishment to train an animal in a particular method. That has to be wrong, because there is no gain for humanity in a successful circus performance. I am therefore concernedand that concern is shared by animal welfare organisationsabout some of the changes that have been made to clause 4. We are told that it has been tidied up, but the provision in clause 4(3)(d) seems to be a get-out clause, because it provides that an assessment of suffering may include whether it was
	proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned.
	For performing animals, the purpose of the conduct is a perfect act, and a fair amount of physical ill-treatment could be justified as technically in proportion to the conduct.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend will not regret giving way, because I entirely endorse much of what she has said about circuses. However, what is her attitude towards the use of performing horses in circuses.

Paddy Tipping: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) who, with my old and dear friend, Tony Banks, formed a remarkable and dynamic duo across the Chamber on these issues.
	I am pleased to speak strongly in support of the Bill, which has been long awaited and is much needed. It revises out-of-date lawsthe 20 pieces of legislation dependent on the Protection of Animals Act 1911, whose cruelty provisions have never been changed.
	I congratulate the Government on the way that they put the Bill together. There have been suggestions in the debate that the Government are not prepared to listen, but their record belies that. When the Bill was put out for consultation between 2 January and 13 April 2002, 2,351 responses were received. A number of working groups and stakeholders involved in animal welfare have added substance to the Bill.
	Reference has been made to the Select Committee, on which I was delighted to serve, even though it took longer than I had anticipated. The Committee received 220 written memorandums and took oral evidence from 51 organisations. It produced 101 recommendations, and I am delighted that the Government have shaped and changed the Bill in the light of those comments. I am confident that given that approach and model of good practice, the House will have further opportunities to change the Bill.
	I was also impressed as I served on the Select Committee by how warmly the Bill was welcomed in general terms, although there were deep and strong differences on matters such as wild animals performing in circuses, tail docking, shock collars and pet farms, and we have heard several concerns about them today. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made his position clear. People will table amendments in Committee to try to change the Bill, but the structure of the Bill is essentially right. It is an enabling Bill that will bring about remarkable and much-needed changes in animal welfare, so we should support and stick with it.
	The key provision in the Bill is clause 8, which provides for the duty of care of pet owners to look after their pets properly and sets out the so-called five freedoms. The significant aspect of the Bill is the fact that it takes the focus away from prosecution for cruelty and puts it on the prevention of suffering, which is a new and important change. I was extremely impressed by the evidence that the RSPCA gave on numbers and the individual detailed case studies that showed that suffering could have been prevented by early intervention.
	I hope that the Minister will argue strongly in Committee against the kind of amendments that have been talked about this evening. The important thing is to get the structure, values and framework of the Bill rightafter all, we have waited 100 years for it. If we get that right, the rest will follow. I was interested that the Secretary of State said that she would consult widely on regulations and codes of practice and give adequate time to examine them. That is the trade-off. Let us get the structure of the Bill and a commitment from the Government that when they bring forward important regulations and codes of practices, there will be real consultation both inside and outside Parliament so that important individual issues, such as wild animals in circuses and shock collars, can be properly debated. I am against such activities, but I am confident that the values of the Bill will ultimatelywe might have to wait some timelead to their demise.
	I hope that we will have the opportunity to examine clause 4 in detail in Committee. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has already pointed out that we need to consider mental, as well as physical, suffering. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald talked about clause 4(3)(d), which offers the defence of
	whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned.
	That has real relevance to performing animals in circuses, so I hope that we will be able to test the principles in the clause and push them to their limits in Committee.
	I want to make three further points. First, the RSPCA has briefed hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber extremely well. It has asked for no further powers under the Bill and has been granted no further powers. There is confusion about the term inspector in clause 45. I understand that such an inspector will be appointed by the Secretary of State at a national level, or by local authorities. I think that the Government have in mind people such as state veterinary inspectors, or environmental health officers who work for a local authority. There is confusion between the person referred to in clause 45 and the traditional hard-working, uniformed RSPCA inspector. The RSPCA has many friends, but it has detractors as well, and we heard the voices of some of them in correspondence quoted in the Chamber. There will be no new powers of entry. The RSPCA will continue to be reliant on the powers of entry of the police.
	Secondly, the regulatory impact assessment, mentioned by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), argues that because of earlier intervention and the licensing system, there will be no extra cost to local authorities. I am sceptical about that. This is a major and important piece of legislation, for which many of us have pressed for many years, and it will be a tragedy if its success were denied because of a lack of resources.
	Thirdly, the Bill's strengthwe will see this throughout our discussionsis that it provides a vehicle for debate and change. I have been very interested in the recent discussions on shooting, which has been mentioned. Unlike hunting with hounds, peopleeven implacable opponents, such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the League Against Cruel Sportsare prepared to talk about shooting in a sensible way. Over recent months, I have noticed a growing awareness that shooting will have to change to survive. Our Labour party manifesto makes it clear that we will support shooting and not restrict its practice, and I have three examples from the shooting sector. First, what I found so exciting was that the BASC came out strongly against breeding cages and intensive methods of rearing poultry. It was also exciting to hear the League Against Cruel Sports recognise and accept that.
	Secondly, snaring is also important. It is legal, but has many deficiencies. Through the good offices of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a new snaring code has been put together. The Bill will encompass that code of practice. There is more work to be done on it, but I am impressed by the willingness of supporters and opponents of shooting to get into a dialogue.
	My third example is what has become known as industrial shootinglarge shoots that often pay remarkable fees for big bags of birds that are not used for food or retail. There are stories that many of them are buried in pits. That is wrong. Shooters who want the sport to survive know that there needs to be change. Again, it is interesting that there is an overlap of views between the BASC, which is pro-shooting, and the league, which is against it.
	I hope that the Bill proves a vehicle for sensible discussions about animal welfare. What struck meperhaps I should not get into thisabout the debate on hunting was how entrenched people were in their positions. Change will be necessary if shooting is to survive. I hope that the Bill provides us with a framework and set of values so that we can all have sensible and rational discussions about animal welfare activities. I am against wild animals in circuses, tail docking and pet farms, but I strongly believe that the Bill's structure, although we may have to wait for it, will ultimately lead to a sensible discussion and the demise of those activities.

Derek Conway: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who made a reasoned, and seasoned, contribution to the debate in his usual sincere manner, and I am grateful to him for that.
	A number of people have commented on their memories of Tony Banks in this place. Although he became famous, or even infamous, for his campaigns on hunting with dogs, he did, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned, take a great interest in many animals. During my time as chief executive of the Cats Protection League, or Cats Protection, as it now prefers to be called, Tony was made one of the patrons of the league, along with my right hon. Friend. Tony was a strong supporter and a great cat lover. I like to think that he would have a wry smile on his face at the thought that he, like the cats he loved, left a mark on this place. He was a man who will be well thought of in the animal welfare world for the sincerity with which he cared for the pets he owned and the pets he argued for.
	It is a pleasure to take part in a debate in which there are so many Members present who over the years have expressed such keen interest in animal welfare work. I am glad that we can now have this debate, which has been delayed for so long under Conservative Governments and under this Government because there was always the danger that the Bill would be hijacked and would concentrate only on hunting with dogs. Every time Ministers suggested trying to do something about the legislation, the business managers on all sides would run for cover because they knew that it would be a Christmas tree Bill, with everybody wanting to hang a bauble on it, so it would be completely lost in this place. Now that hunting with dogs has been taken care of in a different way, we can concentrate on how legislation affects animals more widely.
	The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald about our responsibilities, particularly to domesticated animals, was well made. When I represented the largest cat welfare charity in Britain and went to different places, I often got quite hostile questions from people in the audience. We raised 27 million a year for cats, and people would ask, Why aren't you giving that to children or to people abroad? How dare you have 300 employees spending so much time and effort looking after cats?, without realising that, as my right hon. Friend said, how we treat our animals is very much a mark of our society.
	What helped to make the cruelty debate more realistic was when, eventually, the police came to the conclusion that a personsadly, often, a manwho will kick a dog is often the same individual who will as likely kick a child or a partner. The same is true of cruelty to cats. Some of my friends used to tease me about my work with Cats Protection, saying, I bet you mix with some pretty strange people. The term mad cat lady was always being thrown at me and the people with whom I was dealing. I well remember when my right hon. Friend visited one of the shelters; I went with her because the manager was a bit nervous about having someone so famous come to look at a cat. My right hon. Friend went round to decide to which one or two cats she might give a home. There was one that she particularly liked, and the manager came up to me quietly and asked, How do we tell her that this cat is an ankle-biter? I approached my right hon. Friend and said, You might want to be careful because one of the cats you're looking at is an ankle-biter. She said, Only once. We understood exactly. Of course, she went on to give the animals a wonderful home.
	The thing that I have discovered, having met thousands of men and women who work in cat welfare, is that the vast majority are perfectly normalbut, every now and then, we get a really odd one. What the Bill does, particularly for sanctuaries, is deal with the odd one: the person who ostensibly loves the animal and means well and takes in a cat or two; then it is five and then 10, and because the cat is one of the most proficient breeding animals in the world, before very long it is 100. We would then have to try to move in vets, the RSPCA and social workers to do something about it.
	The message that we always used to try to put across to people is, You don't have to be kooky to look after a cat. You don't have to be an extreme animal welfare person. You just have to be normal. We would say to those with a dog, Have a cat as well because dogs and cats get on well together. I would then get hostile letters from cat ladies saying that one should never have cats with children or with dogs. What I found increasingly with some of the smaller sanctuaries where we had to put in vets to try to help is that some people's love for the animal was completely overtaken by their inability to cope with the care of the animal. Although they meant well they just could not cope.
	I am glad that the Government are bringing forward measures to tackle licensing and registration. The Secretary of State, in her welcome opening remarks, mentioned that there would be greater need for welfare sanctuaries. The right hon. Lady is probably right in saying that. As a result of that, there will be much greater need for care standards. The Cats Protection charity introduced cat care standards. It was hugely controversial because it was designed to limit the number of cats that people could look afterrather than hundreds, say a maximum of five. It was rather like declaring war on some of our supporters.
	When it comes to sanctuaries, not always are the best inspectors vets. I found it surprising that sometimes some vets can have a pretty hard-hearted approach to pets. I am not decrying the profession generally, but I have met a number of vets who have a pretty tough approach to animals. Although they would obviously care for them from a veterinary point of view, welfare was less of a strong point for them. When secondary legislation is brought forward, especially that dealing with sanctuaries, it is important that proper care and attention is given to the way in which animals are kept.
	Members receive a lot of lobbying from the RSPCA, which has its detractors. Sometimes it is more political than some people would like. My experience of working closely with it over seven years is that it means well and that the political dimension of its activities is only a small, although controversial, part of its work overall. The RSPCA undertakes a vast iceberg of work through its paid staff and also through voluntary helpers. It is remarkable. It is right that Members and Government advisers take note of the RSPCA's views.
	We must have a mind to some of the other welfare societies that have particular expertise. Reference has been made to the work of the Dogs Trust. My hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) have been great supporters of the trust. It is a wonderful organisation. It used to be called the National Canine Defence League. In our well-educated society, people did not understand what canine meant, so it was thought that the title Dogs Trust would be a bit easier and better to market. It has a dedicated chief executive called Clarissa Baldwin, who has sent a briefing pack to us all. I hope that Members who are appointed to the Committee will consider it closely. The trust does a marvellous job in looking after dogs, as does the Battersea Dogs Home, which is across the river from this place. It takes in cats as well, and its work has been continuing for 100 years.
	Some of us might get into hot water over the business of mutilation. I find it a difficult issue. I can understand the point that is made about working dogs and the problems of maggots and faeces, for example, and there is also the domestic issue. I am confused because for many years I had a wonderful dog, which was a Labrador. It was not a gun dog or a working dog but a family pet. I lived in Shropshire and I saw many gun dogs at work. I cannot remember seeing a Labrador with a docked tail. It may be that some dogs are more appropriate to be gun dogs than others, but I think that Labradors are quite well used. Those who are in favour of the mutilation of tails will have to persuade me on the Labrador point.

Derek Conway: I take my hon. Friend's point. Our family pet has a docked tail, and had one when we took it in. Many people give homes to rescued animals that have docked tails. Whatever the regulation that takes effect, from that moment on no doubt prosecutions will occur, if the practice continues.
	I can understand why the Kennel Club is arguing on behalf of its members. It guards the purity of the breeds with great care, and it does a remarkable job. Many people forget that the club is not only about the defence of the breedsit is a generous charity, together with other welfare charities. It has a policing job within breeds as well as a supportive role, and it is generous to other dog welfare charities. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I think that there will be a way round the issue once the proposed legislation is in place.
	It is what will come from the legislation that worries me. We have all praised the Government for what they are doing, and that praise is meant genuinely, but I urge them to think back to the Environment Bill, which was enacted last year. Within that measure was a clause dealing with stray dogs. It provided for how they would be collected, cared for and all the rest of it. It was a flimsy part of the Bill. The Minister who was responsible for the Billnot the Minister on the Front Benchwas nervous about it. There was not much time for it to be considered by the Committee. Dog wardens throughout the country are confused about what is going on.
	The dog welfare charities, particularly the Dogs Trust, are trying to re-home stray dogs, and they are under great pressure. The measure was sold to us as enabling legislation and it was said that we would return to the details later. We have not done so, and stray dogs are still very much at issue. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, had a bit of a dig at the Government about the Bill being open ended. I have given an example of where previous open-ended legislation has passed through the House and has not worked.
	There are so many issues of animal welfare to talk about. Clearly, everyone will wish to participate in consideration of the Bill in Committee. I hope that the business managers will ensure that consideration on Report will be of a decent length. What tends to happen is that Bills return from Committee and we find that there is no real time for the House to express its opinions. This is one Bill where the business managers can afford to be generous with time. We are talking not about party political issues, but issues that are widely felt not only in this place but by those who send us here. I look forward to the Bill's consideration in Committee and I wish the Committee well. I am glad that the debate can take place without extreme views dominating the agenda. It is because of that that so many aspects of animal welfare have had to sit on the back burner. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and on all the work that he has done. We look forward to seeing what he produces in Committee and when we consider the Bill on Report.

Shona McIsaac: I am delighted to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway).
	There is genuine cross-party support for the Bill, and that has been reflected in my constituency and, I am sure, in the constituencies of all other hon. Members. On the publication of the draft Bill, I consulted those of my constituents who had an interest in animal welfare issues, and asked for their opinions on the Bill. I am pleased to say that the majority of those people expressed their support for the measure. In line with many of the opinions that have been expressed in the debate so far, they had certain reservations and certain concerns, one of which was the issue of performing animals in circuses. I have questions about animal sanctuaries.
	A number of the constituents to whom I spoke accept that there will be increases in penalties and punishments. A significant number of themprobably about half of those who expressed an opinion to mewanted tougher penalties. They wanted prison sentences to be longer. They wanted fines to be higher and they wanted tougher disqualification for owning animals in future.
	This relates to an issue raised earlier on the penalties issue, which concerns custody plus. The penalty of imprisonment could be reduced to about 13 weeks without custody plus. I understand that that is less than under current sentencing arrangements. We must consider this issue. My constituents are saying that the penalties should be greater, so that if we have custody plus people will be put away for what they consider to be a reasonable time.
	I shall now discuss performing animals in circuses. My constituents have strong opinions on this issue. I found that 95 per cent. of people felt that the use of wild animals in circuses should be banned. As other hon. Members have said, I share that view. Many years ago I served as a councillor on the same council as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). It introduced one of the first bans in Britain on performing circuses on council land, and many local authorities followed suit by refusing to allow circuses to perform on council-owned land. The issue has therefore received strong support up and down the country for many years. MORI opinion polls consistently show that over 60 per cent. of people in Britain would like to ban performing animals in circuses.

James Gray: The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) follows a long succession of speakers in our debate, including her hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who have taken a reasoned, sensible and well-informed approach to an often controversial and difficult subject. I very much welcome the tone of the debate. I entirely agree with most contributors, as I wholly support the principle underlying this excellent Bill, which has been a long time coming. I very much support the consultation and the debates that preceded it, as well as the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the draft Bill and so on. I shall return to that when I speak about the regulations.
	It is easy for hon. Members to express heartfelt sentiments on the subject of animals. Our mailbags attest to the fact that our constituents have extremely strong feelings about the way in which we treat our animals. It is easy for us to stand up in the Chamber and express sugary, schmaltzy sentiments about the importance of animals to us. My goodness, that is truethere is no greater animal lover than I. However, we are not merely expressing wonderful sentiments about those animals; we are discussing the means by which we should protect them. After all, the English are the greatest animal lovers in the world, and we have some of the best law already in place. We want to make sure that we do not introduce law that does not work, is bad law, or which makes the lot of the animals that we are seeking to protect worse. Merely saying that we are concerned about those animals and must do something about the problem is not necessarily the right approach to legislation. In particular, there is confusion at the heart of this afternoon's debate. Most contributorsthe hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) was typical in that respectexpressed strong views on subjects such as circuses, tail docking and animal sanctuaries. Many of us hold strong views about those issues, and most hon. Members and people across the nation would agree that it is probably not right to keep lions and tigers in a circus, because it is an entirely unnatural environment for them. However, we should think carefully about the subject of horses in circuses, as performing horses may well perform naturally and enjoy what they are doing. That is a matter for debate but, broadly speaking, we agree about the issues.
	The Bill, however, does not deal with those issues, and that is the fundamental flaw of our debate. The Government are seeking to put in place the biggest Henry VIII measure that I have ever encountered. In it, they say that they do not have a particular view about tail docking. They know that it is controversial, and that some people, including myself, think that prophylactic docking is a good thing for working dogs but cosmetic docking may not be appropriate for other dogs. They know that that is what some people think, and that there are strong views on both sides of the argument. However, apart from giving hints in the documents that accompany the Bill, the Government say that they do not have a view. They have said that they are not entirely happy about animal sanctuaries although they do not intend to say anything about that during today's debate, but will put in place a mechanism by which to return to such issues later.
	Both sides of those controversial arguments dislike that situation. Those of us who believe in prophylactic tail docking would like to see the Government's hints on the subject much more clearly spelled out. Those who are totally opposed to itwe have heard from many of them this afternoonwould equally say that the Bill should clearly specify what will happen when it becomes an Act. The Government seem to be seeking to kick many of these difficult, controversial and awkward issues and details into the long grass, and I do not accept that that is necessarily a good thing.
	In that context, while welcoming all the consultation and discussion that we have had on the Bill in general during the last three or four years, I should like to be certain that when we come to a complex and difficult technical issue, such as whether to use horses in circuses or whether livery yards should be subject to the same regulation as riding schools, we have the same degree of consultation and discussion on each as we have had on the main Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) made the extremely powerful point that our procedures for the consideration of statutory instruments are weak. They are considered for one and a half hours in Committee where Government Members do not speak, where no amendment is possible and where the measure is either passed or not, but because of the whipping system is extremely likely to be passed. Not once during many years has the House of Lords overturned such a measure, so if controversial or wrong measures were put through, the other place would not be able to correct them. That is an unsatisfactory mechanism for the consideration of matters that are technical, difficult and need to be considered carefully.
	We have reached 2006 allowing tail docking and other animal practices because some people believe them to be good. Perhaps some hon. Members right now do not, but others do, and those matters should be considered carefully, not on the basis of sentiment or political pressure. We could not have a situation where the Secretary of State was under terrible pressure from his Back Benchers and so agreed to ban lions and tigers from circuses, or safari parks, which might be next, or zoosor the many other things that could be banned, bowing to political pressure, sentimentality or anthropomorphism, doing something that he would not otherwise do and which might not necessarily be to the benefit of the animals themselves. I therefore have some concerns about the Bill's structure. It would be better if the Government could find a way of putting more on the face of the Bill.
	A number of detailed and specific matters have not necessarily been thought through as carefully as they might. For example, there is the question of the ownership of animals. Under the law at the moment, the farmer owns a wild animal until such time as it has grown up, so baby foxes, badgers or deer on a farmer's land are owned by the farmer. As I read the Bill, the farmer would have a duty of care for such small animals until such time as they are grown up. The Minister shakes his head, but if he examines the Bill, I think that he will find that I am right. We need to refer to substantive ownership, rather than effective ownership.
	The use of snares and live trapping have been mentioned. A magpie caught in a magpie box perfectly humanely would be in the ownership of the person who set up that box. Under the Bill, to what degree does that person have a duty of care to the magpie? Is shooting it sufficient, or do they have to look after it in some other way? The whole question of ownership needs to be examined carefully.
	We have talked about mutilation in a variety of ways, and there are arguments on both sides of the case, although now may not be the time to air them all, but let us take it one stage further. It is extremely common practice in farming. For example, all sheep and pig tails are docked. It is considered to be good practice under the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), who for many years served as chief executive of the Cats Protection League, talked about docking, but virtually every dog and cat in the country is neutered. Is castration of a dog necessarily any worse than cutting off its tail? That could well be the position that we are moving towards. Mutilation is therefore not something to be talked about in light-hearted terms. One should consider carefully why it might be that gun dogs or other working dogs, such as terriers working undergroundthat is still allowed under legislation introduced last yearshould be allowed to have their tails docked.
	None of us supports animal fighting. That is one of the most vicious things and I welcome the Bill's clarification of the fact that that can no longer happen. But we need to be certain that the perfectly legitimate use of animals against other animalsparticularly the use of terriers against rats and mice, which was acknowledged in a debate last year to be a perfectly acceptable use of a dog against another animalis not inadvertently misunderstood.
	It is important that we do not allow dogs, cats or other animals to be abandoned. I am a strong supporter of the important principle that dogs should be for life, not just for Christmas. But what about animals that are released back into the wild? A number of animal welfare organisations catch foxes in towns and release them in the countryside. Would they have care for those foxes? What about those people who are illegally shifting badgers, trying to disrupt the Krebs process? To what degree do they come under the Bill? What about the release of wild animals back into the wild? We all loved the films about Keiko the whale and Elsa the lioness who were released back into the wild. There are a variety of ways in which animals are released back into the wild.
	We need to think carefully about the issue of abandonment and precisely what that means. There is a particular problem with regard to horses. The International League for the Protection of Horses, an outstandingly good organisation, has raised with me the fact that, because of a number of changes in horse legislation recently, there may be an increased tendency towards the abandonment of horses. The precise way in which the regulations affect that disgraceful practice must be looked at extremely carefully.
	Those and a number of other areas are inadequately addressed in the Bill, which has been structured in such a way that almost no one could object to it on principle. As has been said, most of its measures are demonstrable goods, but inside the fine print there is a significant risk that the end result for many types of animals would be significantly worse than it is today.
	The Government should not take part in legislative idleness. They should be ready to address these difficult issues of circuses, animal welfare, animal sanctuaries and docking. They are difficult, complex and technical matters that the Government should be ready to address in debate, not kick into the long grass and leave to a Statutory Instrument Committee at some dim and distant date in the future. From the point of view of those who believe that some practices should be allowed in order to protect animals, and from the point of view of those who believe strongly that those practices should be outlawed, we should take the opportunity of this Bill today and in the months that lie ahead to address those issues for real, not merely to hide behind the fact that at some stage in the future we may or may not introduce regulations to deal with them.
	I have a fundamental difficulty with the Bill's structure. The Government should address the issues up front and be much bolder in their approach. I hope that in Committee and on Report they will be ready to do just that.

David Drew: I am delighted to take part in the debate. We have all made comments about the late Tony Banks. I am sure that he would have some comments about those pleasantries, which he would express in his own inimitable way. I hope that the Bill will to some extent be a memorial to his wonderful work in the House on animal welfare.
	This is a substantial Bill. Some say that it should go further in the sense of, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, clarifying some of the issues that we have debated, but there is some merit in keeping the Bill reasonably lean. I am interested less in the regulatory impact assessment than in the codes of practice. I hope that, if I am selected to serve on the Committee, we will have the opportunity to hear from the Minister what real authority will lie behind the codes of practice. In some respects that will test whether the legislation will be as effective as some of us want it to be. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), I earnestly hope that the Government are brave in Committee and on Report.
	Although I am not a banner by inclination, the Government must make the matter clear. Even if they do not spell out the position in the Bill, they should clarify the situation through their subsequent use of the regulatory process. The issues raised by tail docking, electric collars, pet fairs and circuses, and arising from the treatment of crustaceans, cephalopods, game birds and greyhounds cannot be wished away, and those are just the subjects that hon. Members have mentioned today. If the Government do not want to make their position clear in Committee, they must set out how they will revisit those issues and what they intend to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has said, there is merit in keeping the Bill flexible, and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has also referred to the advantages of flexibility. We cannot do everything immediately, although some of us want to.
	In passing, I congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its work. I am a member of the Committee, but I was ill during some of the pre-legislative scrutiny, which the Government have pioneered and which has proved its worth in this case.
	I welcome the redefinition of cruelty. Unlike the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I think that the Bill clarifies the concept of cruelty in relation to abandonment, neglect and mental cruelty, although those points may require further explanation through challenges in the courts. The Bill contains clear legal judgments that will help us to define how to attack cruelty, and although the five freedoms that form the basis of the duty of care will be tested, we have got a good Bill to fall back on.
	I pay tribute to the RSPCA, which is clearthis point was borne out by recent briefingsthat cruelty is a growing problem. It is difficult to prosecute people under the current legislation, but the number of cases in which the RSPCA is involved is increasing. In her excellent speech, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald discussed how different organisations have faced up to that trend, and it is good to be on the same side as her in that regard, if not in all regards.
	The RSPCA supports the legislation because of the problems that it faces. Whatever fine words we use in this House, what happens on the ground is most important in the long run. If nothing else, I hope that we can amend the ridiculous idea that a RSPCA inspector must make 25 visits to the most awful cases in order to prosecute someone due to the worst excesses of ownership or the neglect of ownership. The RSPCA inspectors with whom I have been out would welcome clear guidance on the grounds on which they can enter a property, and they are looking forward to the Bill's enactment at the earliest opportunity.
	I urge the Government to examine the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is parallel legislation to the Bill, because I regularly talk to vets, who want their particular powers to be updated. No doubt the DEFRA team will argue for such an examination as part of the future legislative programme. Vets need their powers, which need to be brought into the 21st century, to be clarified in areas such as charging and responsibility.
	Concerns have been expressed in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about the custody and control of animals, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will put on the record that the Government are sure, having listened to the Committee, that the wording will clarify the issue. Hon. Members have discussed some of the problems, and I shall raise another: given bovine TB, what would happen if someone wants to adopt a friendly badger? What would be that badger's status if there were a subsequent cull, which might cover a wider area than some of us might want? Such test cases must be thought through very carefully.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has covered some of the issues associated with shooting and fishing, on which various organisations will want the Standing Committee to test the impact of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that they do not want the Bill to impact on shooting and fishing, but the matter will undoubtedly be debated. I am against snaring as a form of animal control, and I hope that we clarify what is allowableI know where I stand on that issue.
	The Bill will have cost implications for local authorities, which will take on additional responsibilities, and for the RSPCA. Perhaps we will get some figures about the real cost of the Bill on Third Reading.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Bill is passed tonight without a vote, which would send a signal to people who want to see the implementation of animal welfare legislation that the House can act unanimously, even if differences and disagreements subsequently arise over the detail. The devil will be in the detail, but this is the right time to introduce the Bill. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill and hope that some of the difficult issues are clarified in subsequent debates.

Andrew Rosindell: As hon. Members will know, I am the proud owner of Buster, a two-year-old Staffordshire bull terrier. Buster's welfare is fully provided for. He is well fed, well exercised, has a vet when he needs one, and is microchipped. Overall, he has a very comfortable existence.
	As a nation of animal lovers, one would assume that most people in the United Kingdom would treat animals in a similar way. Since my election as a Member of Parliament, I have often supported charities and organisations that strive to improve animal welfare in foreign countries, assuming that the problem of animal cruelty was more urgent elsewhereabroad rather than at home. Sadly, however, it does not take much effort to find a lot of evidence of unacceptable animal cruelty and maltreatment taking place here in Britain. One has only to open a newspaper to see a report detailing stomach-churning atrocities committed by human beings on animals.
	In the past few years, the media have reported many acts of cruelty that are so despicable as to be almost beyond belief. The Sun recently drew attention to the plight of Spot, a Dalmatian found hanged from a tree by thugs. In August 2003, a particularly vile individual physically bit the head off a kitten at a barbecue. In Colwyn Bay last year, a rabbit was snatched from a children's farm at a zoo and thrown into the alligator house next door. In the space of two days in September 2005, a cat was thrown from a bridge on to the M6, another cat was found decapitated in Gloucester, and more than 100 cats were found dead in a house in Leeds. Even in my own constituency, last year a small dog called Harry was, for no apparent reason, beaten to death with a broom handle by an intruder and left in a pool of blood, causing untold distress to that family in Romford.
	Such offences are so inhumane that one almost cannot believe that they could possibly occur in our countrybut they did, and they are not isolated cases. It emerges from the Bill's regulatory impact assessment that in 2004 the RSPCA rescued or picked up more than 150 animals, answered more than 1.1 million telephone calls and investigated more than 100,000 cruelty cases. The neglect of animals is clearly a growing problem, with cases of ill-treatment rising by 78 per cent. in 2004 on the previous year. Current legislation seems powerless to deal with it. Also in 2004, only 870 people were found guilty of offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
	So many people seem to be getting away with acts of cruelty, and so few are punished. A perfect example of animal cruelty occurring on a weekly basis is the abhorrent practice of dog fighting. The RSPCA estimates that this barbaric act is staged by more than 100 people on a regular basis. The dogs are trained on treadmills, often with live pets shackled just out of reach of their jaws as an enticement for the animal to keep running. The dogs' jaws are strengthened by forcing them to bite tyres and wooden sticks, while their bodies are primed with the aid of steroids. Their trainers turn these animals into killing machines before throwing them into combat with other dogs, the contest finishing only when one dog can no longer fight. If a dog flees, it will be killed. The animals are brave and vicious, so injuries sustained to the head, neck and front limbs are horrific, often including crushed and broken bones and torn-off ears. Because of their owners' fear of being reported, the dogs are not even allowed proper medical attention to their wounds. If a dog somehow manages to remain alive following a fight, it may well die subsequently as a result of its injuries. The owners of these dogs seem to see themselves as coaches and their animals as warriors that they are training for gladiatorial combat. The reality is that they are animal abusersa minority of thugs who subject animals to a doomed existence of violence, pain and inevitable death. The lives of these dogs are allowed to be destroyed purely so that a minority of sick spectators can get their kicks and have a bet.
	Under existing laws, the penalty for partaking in dog fighting is just six months' jail or a fine of 5,000. After a three-year RSPCA investigation, the nine men and a woman prosecuted were handed puny jail sentences of no more than four months, a conditional discharge, and community service orders for offences associated with pit bull ownership. Those people, who were responsible for such abuse of dogs, were given a completely inadequate punishment under current legislation. That must change, and it is a key reason why I fully support the Bill. The penalty will be increased to 51 weeks' jail or a 20,000 fine, or both. It will be illegal to arrange an animal fight, to take bets on an animal fight, and to be present at an animal fight. The increased penalty, combined with the new laws, will place a far heavier deterrent on this savage blood sport, which truly belongs in the dark ages. However, I should like to voice the concern, which I share with the RSPCA, that it is not an offence under the Bill to be in possession of dog-fighting paraphernalia. We have a duty to do our best to eradicate this foul practice, and that is an issue that the Minister should address.
	As many hon. Members will know, particularly those who are members of the all-party greyhound group, we have in my constituency a first-class greyhound stadium, and many Romford residents regularly enjoy a night out at the dogs. Last year, I was honoured to accompany Lady Thatcher on her visit to the stadium, where the noble Baroness watched the lunchtime races and was introduced to two of the winning greyhounds.
	Nevertheless, there is grave concern over the plight of many greyhounds once their racing career is over. About 35,000 greyhounds are at racing strength at any given time, beginning their racing life at 16 months, but usually finishing before the age of three. As a result, 9,000 greyhounds cease to race every year. Despite valiant efforts by the Retired Greyhound Trust, which re-homes about 3,000 dogs, and locally based groups such as the Romford Greyhound Owners Association, little information is available about what happens to the remaining animals. The industry is self-regulating. It wishes to sustain that arrangement because of the huge income that is generated, but the system has proved open to abuse, and in the absence of consistent monitoring of any dog's whereabouts, animals can end up being disposed of ruthlessly.
	Although virtually all those involved in the greyhound industry are animal lovers, there are exceptions, and I am sure that most of the industry will appreciate the extended protection that the Bill provides to dogs. It will legally enforce many of the practices undertaken by those within the industry. It will ensure that those owning greyhounds provide a safe home for them; if they do not, the consequences will be severe. With increased power, the RSPCA will be able to intervene earlier, and potentially save the lives of thousands of greyhounds.
	So far, I have spoken of the plight of fighting dogs and greyhounds. Any Bill that helped to protect those animals would be commendable and have my full support, but this Bill covers many other areas and reaches beyond the protection of dogs. It also provides legally binding protection for non-farmed animals so that their welfare is assured as much as that of farmed animals. Farm welfare legislation allows earlier intervention on grounds of poor welfare, so it is simple common sense to align the welfare of non-farmed animals. The Bill will reduce animal suffering by enabling preventive action to be taken before more suffering occurs, replacing the current outdated legislation that allows only small punishments to be enforced once the act of cruelty has been committed.
	The Bill ensures that animal owners take responsibility and simultaneously helps to make sure that only responsible people are in a position to look after animals in the first place. By increasing from 12 to 16 the minimum age at which a child may buy an animal, and prohibiting giving pets as prizes to unaccompanied children under the age of 16, the Bill prevents irresponsible minors from being responsible for an animal's life.
	The Bill will also help open the door for future welfare measures, while deterring persistent offenders by strengthening penalties and eliminating many loopholes in the system. By punishing cruelty and mutilation and enhancing law enforcement for animal welfare offences, we can ensure that an animal's experience of life is of the highest quality.
	The outdated language, confusing ambiguities and frustrating loopholes of the 1911 Act will no longer stand in the way of the safety of our animals. Those who neglect their duty of care will not be allowed to own animalsa proposal that merits complete support.
	Let us prove that we are a nation of animal lovers by supporting the Bill.

David Taylor: I am in the rare position of agreeing with almost every word of a speech by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). It was fascinating to hear that Lady Thatcher had been going to the dogs for yearsI wonder whether that started before or after 1979.
	As a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 2001, I witnessed the genesis of the Bill at close quarters. When we consider content, flexibility and process, the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which the measure has been introduced. Admittedly, it happened over a long period and examining the Bill in draft form took a great deal of time and energy. However, that was worth while given the improvements to the measure.
	I want to refer briefly to four subjects: horse welfare, cephalopods, duty of care and tail docking. Tethering horses is one of the most common equine welfare issues with which RSPCA inspectors deal, affecting more than 3,500 horses in 2004 alone. By the time there is evidence of suffering to provide legal grounds for action, the horses have often sustained significant or even fatal injuries. Current law does not allow for intervention before cruelty can be proved and I am pleased that progress has been made on that. If animals are to be tethered, it should be only a temporary measure and done in such a way that the animal's welfare is protected. Tethering also affects dogs so a code of practice to back up preventive laws and stronger penalties for animal cruelty would be useful in ending the excessive and cruel reliance on tethering animals such as horses and dogs.
	North-West Leicestershire is a former mining area that is now at the heart of the national forest and close to several former fox hunting groups. As I expected, equine activity is expanding at a rapid rate in the wake of the ban on fox hunting. There are increasing numbers of livery yards in my constituency and throughout England and Wales. It is estimated that there are between 7,000 and 10,000, covering a wide variety of activities, providing from accommodation and full care to simply a paddock and a stable. Livery yards are not regulated and I am pleased that the Government propose to extend licensing arrangements to them.
	It appears that the Government will allow livery licences to cover more than 12 months. That runs counter to the Select Committee's conclusions on the Department's proposals. We did not support the proposal to introduce licence periods of more than 12 months because it
	would reduce the frequency with which business or premises would be inspected, and would therefore not promote the highest standards of animal welfare because it would increase the period of time during which breaches of legislation could go undetected.
	I therefore regret that provision. However, I welcome the Government's proposal to license livery yards and I would add a provision to make licences renewable every 12 months on the ground of welfare.
	Licences for riding establishments should not be extended from a year to 18 months. Again, that increases the risk of animal neglect and cruelty going undetected. The responsibility for inspecting riding establishments should not be passed to local authorities. Although I am a strong supporter of local authorities, I do not detect the necessary knowledge and professionalism that would allow them to carry out that specific regulatory activity satisfactorily.
	Clause 1 does not include cephalopods, for example, octopuses, or decapod crustaceans, for example, lobsters and crabs, in the definition of animal. The Bill therefore gives them no protection. The Select Committee took the issue seriously in our pre-legislative scrutiny. We said that we believed that a strong case had been made for the inclusion of octopuses, crabs and lobsters in the definition of animal. There is continuing research in the fieldperhaps more than was believed to be the case.
	Our report shows that cephalopods and decapod crustaceans have a nervous system and that there is considerable similarity between the nervous systems of vertebrates and those of cephalopods and decapod crustaceans. As I said earlier, cephalopods have complex brain and sense organs that rival those of vertebrates. Indeed, a report to the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety described them as some of the most advanced in the animal kingdom. I was therefore pleased to receive an assurance from the Secretary of State that, as science advances, the flexibility in the Bill may be used to widen the definition of animal satisfactorily.
	Strong neurochemical and behavioural evidence shows that cephalopods and decapod crustaceans can experience pain and stress. For example, their opioid systems, which are involved in pain relief and response to injury, appear to function in the same way as in vertebrates. Those animals clearly try to avoid painful or aversive situations or objects. That constitutes substantial evidence that they should be treated as animals. Some experiments on those categories of animal, which I shall now call them, are based on the assumption that they can experience pain. Electric shocks are used as an aversive stimulus.
	Octopuses are intelligent animals that display a wide range of complex and flexible behaviour, including problem solving, tool use and play. They are capable of associative and even observational learning and have individual responses and temperaments. Decapod crustaceans have the ability to learn, discriminate about their environment, remember and form stable social hierarchies.
	Scientists from Bristol university and the Silsoe institute have developed a humane electric stunner called the crustastun. [Interruption.] I can understand hon. Members finding that slightly humorous but the scientists would not have done that if they did not believe that crustaceans can experience pain.
	Evidence in the Advocates for Animals report shows that those animals are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. In the light of that and pursuant to the precautionary principle, I believe that cephalopods and decapod crustaceans should be included in the Bill's definition of animal.
	At the heart of the Bill is the first major leap forward for 95 years. In a sense, that gives the lie to the oft-cited description of Britain as a nation of animal lovers. It has taken that long to make the huge leap forward that constitutes the welfare offence that the measure introduces. As I said earlier, under current law, the animal has to suffer before action can be taken to improve its situation and prosecute its owner. However, the new offencewhich will be supported by the Government's codes of practice to provide animal owners with the information that they need to ensure that they are delivering the right level of carehas the potential to make a real difference to the lives of many thousands of domestic and captive animals in England and Wales.
	For the purposes of the new welfare offence, the Bill will oblige the owner of an animal to do what is reasonable to meet its needs, involving the five criteria of environment, diet, behaviour patterns, housing, and protection from pain, injury and disease. It is important that the Government make it clear that the offence does not impose an unqualified or absolute obligation on those responsible for an animal. It requires only that they do what is reasonable to meet the animal's needs. This will help to answer the detractors of this legislation, who, although not large in number, have been very voluble recently.
	My final point is on tail docking. The Government intend to introduce an exemption from the ban for the tail docking of dogs that are likely to be working dogs, on the ground that they are particularly prone to injury. I am pleased that the exemption of entire breeds of working dogs is no longer being considered. I regard such an exemption as utterly unjustifiable, as very few dogs within those breeds actually work, in any real sense of the term. The Select Committee concluded that
	tail docking in dogs should be banned for cosmetic reasons. Tail docking should continue to be permitted for therapeutic reasons where it is in an animal's best welfare interests.
	Many animal welfare campaigning organisations and individuals urge that any exemption on tail docking in dogs should be delayed for at least two years in order to gather evidence of the real extent of the necessity for tail docking in working dogs because of injury, compared with the circumstances involving non-working dogs. The issues that should be examined during that research period include whether the incidence of tail injury in working dogs is any greater than in non-working dogs; whether the injuries sustained could be adequately addressed by methods less severe than tail amputation; whether the injuries could be reduced or avoided by other measures such as tail trimming or working the dogs in different terrain; whether, as a DEFRA paper on this topic suggests, careful breeding might result in naturally shorter tails; and whether less vulnerable breeds of dog could be used in terrain particularly likely to cause tail injury.
	I warmly welcome the Bill. I have been a lifetime campaigner on animal welfare issues, and I am very pleased to be a member of the Select Committee. There are other issues that we would like to see addressed: shock collars and goads should be restricted to use in the Government Whips Office, for example, and I regret that there are no planned improvements for the conditions of farmed animals. Apart from that, however, I believe that the Bill is a worthwhile and long overdue piece of legislation.

Bill Etherington: It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate, which is one of the best that I have heard for quite a long time.
	The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was perhaps being diplomatic when she said that many members of the public do not put animal welfare high on their agenda of importance. She was perhaps too kind as, unfortunately, a large swathe of the population are completely indifferent to animal welfare, which is very sad. We have three categories of people. There are those in the middle, whom she described so well. There are those who are ardent supporters of treating animalsfarm animals, companion animals or any animalswith respect, consideration and kindness. At the other end of the spectrum is a very small minority who treat animals cruelly, sometimes through intent and sometimes through indifference. The end result is the same, howeverthe suffering of an animal.
	I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it had taken four years to prepare. It has been worth it. Most people, despite some reservations, will think that it has been four years well spent. Few of those who have been eagerly awaiting the Bill for some time will be disappointed overall.
	Importantly, the Bill recognises that society has a problem that will not just be put right by legislation. We will only put right the problem in society through education and changing the culture. That is one of the things that legislation can do. If we legislate to say that, no matter what the circumstances, a certain thing will be considered illegal, people will end up accepting that, there will not be any doubt, and we will start to bring about improvement.
	We have heard some harrowing tales of animal cruelty, and the RSPCA says that in some areas it is getting worse. In my part of the country, Sunderland, there have been some deplorable instances. Against that, a growing number of people who are not necessarily animal owners will not accept that animals should be treated in such a way, from which we should take hope. Our prognostication should not be gloomy, because things can be improved. I heard it stated in a previous debate that many people look at life and say, That's the way things are. You can't do much about it. That is not true. Over the years, politically, we have seen many changes take place, although perhaps not to as great an extent as we would like in animal welfare. Changes have taken place, however, and things can therefore be made better.
	I want to take exception to one or two issues. First, I do so on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's position on tail docking, which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was the first to describe correctly as mutilation. The term was used once or twice after that, but she was the first one to use it, and she is exactly right because that is what it is.
	I am disappointed to hear from the Dispatch Box justifications for doing nothing on the ground that the same views are held sincerely on both sides. That is not exactly the nub of political action. No one denies that people are well-intentioned and sincere, but sometimes they are wrong. Tail docking is an example. It is deplorable and unacceptable that the small minority represented by dog breeders, those who show dogs and those who organise dog shows can bring about a degree of mutilation that I do not think the public accept. Moreover, no good argument has been presented for docking the tails of so-called working dogs. There is a view in its favour, but it does not seem to have been substantiated by any scientific evidence. I should have been much happier if the Government had expressed an intention of doing away with that deplorable practice.
	I am, however, pleased that we have been promised a free voteas are the Anti-Docking Alliance, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Dogs Trust, the British Veterinary Association and the Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals. It is fair to assume that that is because they think that a free vote will lead to abolition of the reprehensible practice of tail docking. Nothing that causes pain should be done to any animal unless there is some justification for it. It is bad enough when it can be justified, but when there is no justification it borders on evil.
	Two Members mentioned the 9,000 greyhounds that go out of service each year. Many excellent organisations try to rehouse them, and they do a good job, but it does not always work. Let us not forget that greyhounds are working animals and that a lot of money is involved in the greyhound industry. It seems to me not unreasonable for every greyhound owner to be required to register his dog, and for greyhounds that are to be disposed of to be found homes or humanely or properly destroyed by vets. There should be no more of the business of dogs being weighed down and thrown into rivers, because it is barbaric.
	Unfortunately, the tail endexcuse the punof the dog track organisations is not particularly well thought of in that regard. We hear a great deal of anecdotal evidence about cruelty to greyhounds. If a greyhound cannot run, if it cannot make money, if it is not a winner, many people decide that it must be disposed of because it is worth nothing. We do not do such things in a civilised society; we look for a better way of going about matters. There should be a proper registration system, and proper obligations. I know that the greyhound industry has some good systems in place, and I understand that in 2008 the Government will introduce regulations involving the industry. I hope that they will subject every dog track to statutory legislation. Self-regulation is possible, but if it is to work there must be a proper code of practice. The Government have an important task to perform in that respect.
	I want to say something about tethering and snaring. Snaring is a very emotional subject. I consider it intolerable that in this day and age we should snare animals in any circumstances, but let me issue a challenge to those who claim that the practice is acceptable. Until it can be proved that no animal is ever caused unnecessary pain and suffering as a result of snaring, intentionally or otherwise, it should be banned. If someone can demonstrate a humane system of snaring under which the wrong animal will never be snared, no animal will be caught in the wrong way and no unnecessary pain will be suffered, I just might be prepared to modify my views; but I am not prepared to do so now. I ask Ministers to examine the issue, although I accept that this is a very fine Billone of the best that we have seen. It has been long awaited, it is comprehensive and it is very much a modernising Bill. I use that term in the proper sense, not in the new Labour sense. The word modernisation regains its pleasant tone when applied to something worthwhile like the Bill, rather than to a measure that takes us down the wrong road, as some measures do.
	Tethering is another deplorable practice that should not be allowed. People who own animals should be allowed to enclose them and keep them safely, but not tether themnot least because tethering means that an animal is captive and prey to predators. I remember the heart-rending plight of a pet donkey in a village near where I lived some years ago. It was very well loved and spent much of its time with small children, but it was tethered and it was butchered by some thugs. We shall never know what might have happened if it had not been tethered, but it would have had a much better chance of not being butchered. If animals must be kept, they should be kept in proper, enclosed premises. They do not need to be tethered. What they need is some freedom so that they can protect themselves, even if that means running away.

James Duddridge: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington) mentioned greyhounds. I agreed with much of what he said. I shall say something about the subject towards the end of my speech, although I shall reach slightly different conclusions because I have slightly different views on the industry.
	As an animal lover, I support the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has his dog Buster and, previously, his dog Spike; I have my cats Boris and Barney, although they are not as ambitious as Buster and Spike, who have received plenty of publicity. I think that we are all animal lovers, which is why we support the Bill and why there is a broad consensus on it. I believe, however, that some elements are flawed.
	I support the Bill because it moves away from a narrow definition of cruelty. It is more welfare orientated, and is designed to ensure that there is a duty of care. The 1911 Act consolidated a number of 19th century Acts. This 2006 Bill faces a great challenge: to last, and to support the rising standards of welfare over time rather than simply addressing today's needs.
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, considered the Government's response to the pre-legislative scrutiny that took place before my election. That showed me the value of Select Committees, and I believe that my Committee can play a greater role in overcoming some of the problems of secondary legislation.
	I recognise that this is an enabling Bill. I asked the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) why he wanted to propose so many amendments. He may believe that they will allow the enabling legislation to become broader. I do not think that that will happenbut if he intends to table probing amendments, I think that that is a good idea. It is only through the prism of the various issues such as tail docking and circus animals that we can make sense of the legislation and establish whether it will work.
	I hesitate to mention my father, because when I quote him people always assume that he is dead, whereas he is very much alive. However, he told me that the devil is in the detailand in the Bill the devil is the question of how we will deal with secondary legislation. If we did not raise all the individual issues and consider how the Bill will be translated into secondary legislation, we might be subjected to fair criticism. The public would accuse us of leaving aside the hard decisions, as the DEFRA Select Committee put it. I am happy that secondary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but I am concerned and surprised that, rather like other codes, the farm codes, which date from the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, will go from the affirmative procedure to the negative procedure.
	I must admit that I am very unimpressed with the regulatory impact assessment, which I believe the Under-Secretary has to sign, but it must be said that a number of such assessments of Bills are not entirely satisfactory. I am particularly concerned about the extra long-term pressures that this regulation will put on councils such as Southend, which is already underfunded. Secondary legislation is likely to impose even greater responsibilities on councils. This issue was raised during pre-legislative scrutiny, but it has not been sufficiently dealt with.
	I welcome the inclusion of clause 10, which obliges the Government to consult the appropriate national authority, but I am concerned that that is too broad a definition. Perhaps we should extend the obligation to regional authorities, particularly devolved Assemblies, and a number of interest groups also want to contribute to the process. I appreciate that the Government cannot extend the terms of the clause too widely, but extending them would assist the secondary legislation process.
	There is no duty on the Government to look at the science and the facts behind the decisions that they are taking, which concerns me. Animal welfare is a particularly emotive subject. When someone says, This is an animal welfare issue, almost all of us think, Such a view must be right. However, there are people on both sides of the fence examining animal welfare issues, and not all objections made on the basis of animal welfare are right. Members in all parts of the House doubtless received briefings on this issue from various organisations. Some were very good; others were very emotive and lacked scientific fact. My worry is that during the secondary legislation process, the Government and members of the Committee will be swayed by emotive and impassioned pleas, rather than by science.
	I am also worried about the likely pace of introduction of secondary legislation. I implore the Under-Secretary to consider quality, rather than sticking rigidly to the timetable. Matters such as riding schools, livery yards, cat and other animal homes, pet shops, pet fairs, mutilations and the tethering of horses must all be dealt with and legislated on, according to the current timetable, before the end of 2007. That might prove a little too much to take on, given that the current situation has evolved over time since 1911. It is more important that we get this legislation right than that we simply to get it on to the statute book.

David Amess: I am absolutely delighted that all the animal welfare issues that I and other hon. Members have campaigned on over the years come together in this Bill. I simply say to the Minister that I much regret that Tony Banks is not here with us. I have always enjoyed people who have a sense of humour. He certainly had a sense of humourhow else can one describe someone who represented West Ham, where I was born, and supported Chelsea football team? He will be greatly missed by all hon. Members, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the Bill serves as an epitaph to him.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith), I have kept all sorts of animals over the years. At the moment I specialise in Siamese fighting fish; I breed them. The House will be glad to know that I do not allow the males to fight. Those of us who are keen on animals are labelled as cranks. I do not know whether it is such a bad thing to be labelled a crank. I simply observe that there appear to be an awful lot of cranks around at the moment.
	The hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington) referred to tethering. I was a little disappointed in their remarks because in 1987, via the ten-minute rule, I successfully piloted through the House the Protection against Cruel Tethering Bill. The noble Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who is dead now, took it through the House of Lords. It caused a stir at the time, not so much because of the legislation but because I arrived at the Commons on a horse, and the horse was not particularly impressed with what was on his back. The Act protects horses, ponies and donkeys from being cruelly tethered; they have to be properly watered and fed. I am surprised that the Act was not called on, and I say to the Minister that it is another example of legislation of which we take no notice.
	I say also to the Minister that in the time that I have been a Member there have been many animal welfare Bills that have not entirely turned out as we would have wanted. I remember speaking on the Third Reading of the Protection of Badgers Bill, being piloted through the House by the now Lord Waldegrave. The Minister will understand when I refer to a number of homes in a tiny urban area in my constituency where it seems that the badgers got together one night and decided to nip through the front door and take up ownership of the gardens. In two weeks I am having a meeting with the Minister, one or two of his officials and others to discuss that great problem. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is another example of legislation that did not turn out entirely as we would have wished.
	I welcome the Animal Welfare Bill, however, because it goes much further than the Protection of Animals Act 1911. However, I say to the Minister, as other Members have, that some of the clauses should be more carefully defined so that the Bill will be workable and its provisions enforced. We do not want to waste our time celebrating the introduction of the Bill after 100 years only to find out that much of it is difficult to enforce. Some practices that have not been included in the Bill should be regulated through secondary legislation to ensure the protection of animals.
	For example, both the Kennel Club and the RSPCA are, as the Minister knows, disappointed that the Bill fails to prohibit the use of electric dog collars. They have not been proven an effective means of dog training. I do not know whether they could be used to train Members of Parliament, but they are no good for dogs. They scare the animal so that it conforms through fear rather than addressing more deep-seated behavioural problems. Furthermore, these instruments are available through mail order. I ask the Minister to look very carefully at that matter in Committee.
	I certainly welcome clauses 4 to 7, which deal with prevention of harm. I welcome the fact that they make it an offence to cause mental as well as physical suffering to animals through a direct act, through negligence or by failing to prevent suffering inflicted by a person on an animal for which he is responsible. That redefinition of animal cruelty is long overdue; it recognises the psychological impact of mistreatment and neglect which can affect animals long after their physical rehabilitation.
	I welcome clauses 8 to 10, which deal with the promotion of welfare. It is excellent that welfare legislation for domestic animals is being brought into line with provisions for farmed animals in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000. Also in this part, the restriction of the sale of animals and the awarding of animals as prizes to persons over the age of 16 will, to a certain extent, ensure that the person to whom the animal is being transferred will be responsible. I made two or three attempts to introduce legislation on that in the House, and I am going to take a tiny bit of credit for the fact that the matter has been included in the Bill. I agree with everything that hon. Members have said about that. The duty of care that people are given in their ownership of animals has to be dealt with very carefully.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) made a point about pet fairs which I know will slightly annoy the Minister. We do not have the time to go into the minutiae of what has gone on behind the scenes, but I ask the Minister to look at the issue carefully. Pet fairs are currently banned under the 1983 amendment to the Pet Animals Act 1951 which outlaws the business of selling animals
	in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market.
	I can remember my father, who is now dead, so I can say this, taking me to the animal market in Club lane, Petticoat row. I thought that it was marvellous, but I now realise that it was a very wrong way to sell animals. I am not happy with the two or three pet fairs that exist. The Minister has all the documentation on them and I ask him to look carefully at the issue. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion will tonight present a petition of 15,000 signatures. The RSPCA, Animal Aid, the Dogs Trust and the Animal Protection Agency have been campaigning tirelessly against the practices of animal traders.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, in yet another magnificent speech, touched on the issue of tail docking. I do not know whether she made an intentional faux pas, but I tell the House that she presented our youngest child with a black Labrador puppy called Michael. Michael has not stopped wagging his tail since he entered our household, and there are occasions when my wife says, I wish he would stop wagging his tailthere goes another bit of china. I am very content that he continues to wag his tail. I do not know that any of us would like to have our tails docked. Of course we do not have tails, but I should not think that we would be terribly pleased. This is a very difficult issue, and I know that one or two hon. Members have said that the Minister has sat on the fence. The Kennel Club welcomes the Bill's stance on the issue; indeed I see that it has placed an information advertisement in The House Magazine this week maintaining that tail docking should remain a matter of choice for the owner. That view is supported by the Essex and Eastern Counties Boxer Club, which insists that the breed of the dog and the purpose of its breeding should be considered if regulations were to be introduced on tail docking. It is a difficult issue and I hope that the House will be given the opportunity to come to a conclusion on it.
	The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) referred to the qualifications of inspectors. Concerns have been raised about changes to the way in which animal welfare regulations are enforced through the introduction of inspection officers with new powers to transfer the custody of animals away from abusive owners. Currently, the RSPCA is the largest private prosecutor for animal welfare offences. It has been investigating abuses and enforcing laws relating to animals for more than 100 years in conjunction with the police, the State Veterinary Service and Customs and Excise. The Bill will not alter this process despite suggestions that the Crown Prosecution Service should be the sole instigator of prosecutions. The Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee considered the draft of the Bill in 2004 and concluded that, even though concerns have been raised about links between prosecution and the campaigning arms of the RSPCA,
	there appears to be no body other than the RSPCA with the requisite experience to undertake animal welfare prosecutions
	and the RSPCA
	should be able to continue to institute private prosecutions on its own behalf.
	The training of inspectors is essential. There are not enough inspectors and the street-wise attitude which I suppose has developed only in terms of length of service somehow has to be shared with as many inspectors as possible.
	I welcome the Bill, as do many other right hon. and hon. Members. It effectively amalgamates previous legislation. It updates our approach to animal welfare, recognising psychological as well as physical needs, and includes clauses on the prevention of cruelty. I am concerned that the codes of conduct, regulations and licensing codes that will be drafted under secondary legislation should be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny. To have the legalisation of itinerant pet fairs or a ban on tail docking put into statute without wider public consultation that takes in the most recent scientific evidence would be a great mistake. However, I think that all animals can celebrate tonight.

Barbara Keeley: I join right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the Bill. It is gratifying to support a Bill that has so much support in the House and, more widely, from the many agencies that are concerned with animal welfare.
	In speaking at this point in the debate I am faced with the dilemma that is known to all Members of the new intake. Having waited for hours to speak, it seems that much that I wanted to say has already been said. However, it is important that as many Members as possible have a chance to speak and to air their views on the issues that have been raised.
	We have heard from many colleagues who have a long history of concern about animal welfare issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that we were the first country to legislate to protect animal welfare. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) said, it is curious that in a country such as ours, with so much concern for animal welfare, there are still so many instances of animals being subject to suffering and living their lives in stressful and unnatural conditions. At its extreme, this emerges as examples of cruelty sent to right hon. and hon. Members in the briefings from the RSPCA. It is to be seen in reports of, for example, the party-goers who microwaved a pet cat during a party over the Christmas season.
	It is therefore most welcome that the Bill promotes a duty of care among animal owners that is surely to be applied to those such as the people who had the party during which the cat was microwaved. Account must also be taken of the needs of animals. The Bill covers needs such as a suitable environment, food and water, protection from pain, the suffering of injury and disease, housing with or apart from other animals and the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns.
	From that list, I think that the two most important needs are protection from pain, injury and disease and the ability to be able to exhibit normal behaviour for the species. Those two aspects of an animal's welfare are important in determining our responses to the issues that have been highlighted earlier, such as mutilation in the form of tail docking, electric shock collars used for training, pet fairs or intensive factory-level farming for the rearing of game birds.
	If we take account of an animal's welfare needs as expressed in the Bill, it is clear what our response to many of these issues should be. Ways of mutilating animals such as the non-therapeutic docking of dogs' tails should no longer be allowed in my view. Tail docking undoubtedly causes pain. If the reasons are cosmetic and mainly to do with the dog's breed, that pain seems to be unnecessary. Tail docking will also inhibit normal behavioural habits. The dog cannot wag its tail or use it for balance or movement. Mutilating a dog's tail seems to be one of those out-dated and unnecessary practices that it is time that we planned to end. In common with other hon. Members, the dog owners to whom I have spoken recently share that view.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), have raised the issue of pet fairs. Given the emphasis in the Bill on regulation, licensing and a duty of care, a fair is not the right place to buy and sell animals. There is evidence that some pet fairs sell animals caught in the wild, so there is clearly a health risk to the public, particularly given current concerns about wild birds. Pets undoubtedly suffer stress if they are taken to a crowded fair and exhibited for sale. For those reasons, we should revisit the issue of banning pet fairs. Some local authorities already do so, and it would be helpful if good practice were clarified for the benefit of all local authorities.
	Concern has been expressed about farming conditions for the millions of game birds reared every year for shooting. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) aired the issues very well. It is good that shooting organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation have now expressed opposition to the intensive rearing of game birds. It should therefore be clear to people who rear such birds that the time has come to look at more traditional methods, to abandon the intensive farming of game birds, and to try to return to free-range methods of rearing.
	I should like to close my remarks by congratulating the Government on the Bill, which will raise animal welfare standards and make owners responsible for their animals or suffer increased penalties if they fail to do what is reasonable to meet the animal's needs. I welcome, too, the prosecution of people responsible for arranging, or being present at, animal fights, or causing unnecessary suffering in other ways described by hon. Members. When I was an elected member in local government in Trafford, we introduced our own animal welfare charter, which covered many aspects of animal welfare. It did not have the force of legislation, but we introduced it to promote debate on the issues and to foster best practice. I am pleased that the framework of the Bill will allow debate and the fostering of best practice, both now and in the months and years to come.

Ben Bradshaw: I thank Members on both sides of the House for what has been an excellent debate. It was at all times educative, sometimes serious and sometimes entertaining. I have learned a lot, and Members have given me plenty of food for thought to take away to Committee, in which I hope that the debate between the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on tail docking might continue.
	As the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) said, and as one or two other Members pointed out, this is not a Christmas tree Bill as generally understood. It is not a Bill on which either non-governmental organisations or hon. Members are encouraged to hang their pet issue. Much of the debate about the Bill has centred on its nature and on whether it is too permissive in terms of enabling legislation. I will deal with that in a moment. It is important to emphasise, however, that although the debate has focused on a number of separate issues, the Bill is not primarily about banning practices; it is essentially about improving the welfare of animals. The Government have decided that prohibition is the best option in a few instancespet sales to children, for instance, and mutilationbut the introduction of a duty of care and a welfare offence represent the real step forward.
	I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised, but if I forget one or two Members I shall write to them. There was, for example, the issue of the definition of animal. It was inevitable that there would be a debate about where the line should be drawn. There will always be those who want it to be drawn that little bit further to include cephalopods and crustaceans and those who are happy with the proposals as they stand, accepting the Government's belief that there is not yet enough scientific evidence to support their inclusion. What is important is that we have made clear that we are prepared to listen to Members' views in Committee, and will always be mindful of new evidence. According to strong advice that I am currently receiving, however, only one country in the world has included cephalopods in its animal welfare legislation.

Jane Kennedy: I would not say that only to the Brompton. One of the saddest aspects of my job is reading the letters that I get from Members of Parliament enclosing the experiences of their constituents who have written to say how everything went wrong and that nobody explained anything. All that compounds the sense of grievance. As I said earlier, most people just want an explanation of what happened, along with information, support and redress if they need it, and an apology if it is appropriate. Most of all, people want the reassurance that the institution and the professionals involved will learn from the experience.
	I was talking about the electrical failure. After decades of underinvestment in the health service, 50 per cent. of the NHS estate in 1995 pre-dated the creation of the NHS in 1948. I am not making a party political point here. In 1983, the paediatric intensive care unit at the Royal Brompton hospital was sited in a building that was 93 years old.I would seek to reassure the hon. Gentleman, Mr. and Mrs. Lynch and Sarah's twin that the situation today, some 22 years later, is completely different. Modern technologies and generators are now more robust. Modern life-critical medical equipment now remains functional under power failure conditions, supported by local battery supplies. With the NHS continuing to invest in buildings, equipment and infrastructure, generators can now be replaced at regular intervals. A 17 billion national improvement programme is updating the NHS estate, and since Sarah's stay at the Royal Brompton in 1983 the paediatric intensive care unit has been re-sited in the new Sydney wing.
	In relation to data and recording, improving paediatric intensive care has been a priority for this Government. The report entitled, Paediatric Intensive Care: a Framework for the Future, published in 1997, recognised that clinical audit of paediatric intensive care concluded that the collection of data on outcomes from intensive care for children were not satisfactory. We therefore introduced a dedicated audit for paediatric intensive care, which collects data from the 29 lead units. We also recognised that it would take upwards of five years to achieve all the aspirations in the report, and we have therefore devoted 25 million of recurrent funding every year since 200001 for the improvement of paediatric intensive care.
	Sadly, the improvements that I have described have come too late for Sarah, her parents and her twin. I understand that representatives of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust have extended their sympathies to Mr. and Mrs. Lynch as well as an unreserved apology for the tragedy that they and Sarah suffered. I hope that this matter reaches a satisfactory conclusion Following the debate, I will read the Hansard account and the Bell report in full. I know that the trust would find it helpful to see the expert opinion to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
	I want to extend again my condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Lynch. I stress, however that, as I said earlier, this is a matter for the NHS to resolve. I really hope that all involved are able to reach a positive outcome very soon. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to discuss the matter.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.